Com. v. Johnson, D.
1069 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 2, 2018Background
- In 2007 Dennis B. Johnson was implicated in the robbery and fatal shooting of Kenyatta Smith at a convenience store; eyewitnesses (Curtis and Clark) identified Johnson at trial and a single .32-caliber bullet killed the victim.
- Johnson was convicted in September 2010 of second-degree murder, robbery, and a firearms offense and sentenced to life plus concurrent terms; his direct appeal was discontinued on September 9, 2011.
- Johnson filed a first counseled PCRA petition in July 2012 which was dismissed; that dismissal was affirmed on appeal and the Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal in August 2015.
- In May 2011 Maurice Stokes sent a letter to Johnson’s then-PCRA counsel recanting prior statements that implicated Johnson and asserting Johnson’s innocence; Stokes did not testify at trial.
- Johnson received his former counsel’s file (including the Stokes letter) in September 2015 and filed a pro se PCRA petition on September 10, 2015, claiming the letter as newly discovered evidence and asserting Brady/governmental interference and ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel; the PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding Johnson failed to invoke any timeliness exception: the Stokes letter was inadmissible hearsay (not a "newly discovered fact"), Johnson lacked due diligence, ineffective-assistance claims do not excuse timeliness, and the alleged Brady material was not shown to be suppressed or material given Stokes was a non-witness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Johnson) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Stokes letter satisfies the PCRA "newly discovered facts" exception (§9545(b)(1)(ii)) | Stokes’ May 2011 letter recants earlier statements and is a newly discovered fact excusing untimeliness; Johnson filed within 60 days of receiving it | The letter is inadmissible hearsay and not a newly discovered fact; Johnson knew (or could have known) facts earlier and failed to act with due diligence | Denied — letter is hearsay, not a newly discovered fact; Johnson failed to show due diligence |
| Whether ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel (for not using the Stokes letter) excuses the untimeliness | Counsel’s failure to act on the Stokes letter rendered the petition timely or warrants relief | Ineffective-assistance claims do not excuse the PCRA time bar; timeliness exceptions are statutory | Denied — ineffectiveness cannot overcome timeliness requirements |
| Whether the petition should be considered "in the interest of justice" despite untimeliness | General fairness/interest of justice warrants reaching the merits of the Stokes claim | PCRA time limits are jurisdictional; equitable considerations cannot override statutory exceptions | Denied — interest of justice does not substitute for statutory exceptions |
| Whether alleged governmental interference/Brady violation (failure to disclose Stokes’ plea/deal) satisfies a timeliness exception | Stokes’ letter reveals a plea deal or prosecution arrangement that was withheld, amounting to governmental interference/Brady violation | Stokes was a non-witness at trial; any plea or deal related to him is immaterial to Johnson’s trial outcome; no proof of suppression or materiality; also no due diligence shown | Denied — no Brady basis shown (non-witness, not material/suppressed), and timeliness exception not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (two-part test for §9545(b)(1)(ii): facts unknown and not discoverable with due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 141 A.3d 491 (Pa. Super. 2016) (evidence blaming another that rests on inadmissible hearsay does not satisfy the newly-discovered-fact exception)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016) (petitioner bears burden to plead and prove a timeliness exception)
- Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 141 A.3d 1277 (Pa. 2016) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling)
- Commonwealth v. Ovalles, 144 A.3d 957 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Brady requires evidence be favorable, suppressed by the prosecution, and material to outcome)
- Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (governmental interference/Brady may invoke a timeliness exception but petitioner must show due diligence and that information could not have been obtained earlier)